Foreword: Before I begin, I would like to suggest the reader to keep an open mind on the topic. In this essay [or article], I will be drawing information mainly from the Bible, my knowledge of the Abrahamic religions and atheist arguments. It is inevitable for me to touch on a few raw nerves here and there, so if any reader feels the need to voice out his/her comments, feel free to post it here.
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism….. The world today is cluttered with countless religions and sects. Christianity alone, including the Catholics, has hundreds of sects ranging from the Charismatics to the Pentecostalists. According to estimates by various religious bodies, only approximately a third of the world are free-thinkers, atheists or agnostics. However, despite the pervasiveness of the concept of the existence of a higher power, often termed or called God, the global scientific community are unable to reach a consensus on whether God exists. The reason: no one has been able to prove the existence of any God or gods satisfactorily. It is difficult, if not impossible, to prove the existence of God through scientific means.
Firstly, science on its own is a study of the world around us. In other words, what science does, infallibly, is to generate data and raw, uninterpreted, information about the world around us. What happens after the data is generated is that the human mind starts to attach meanings and attempt to formulate patterns to fit the data or to create a general theory which satisfies the data. However, as much as our ability to do such things have served us well for the past 3 million years, it creates a weakness in science: science in its rawest form is correct, but our refined and interpreted versions of it might not be. For an example, take 4 colored circles with a quarter taken out from each, when arranged in a circle, with the empty spaces facing inwards. Psychologists have found that the human mind automatically, by cognitive function, see the “invisible” square or diamond.
From the first stage raw data onwards, science is no longer utterly correct as it has been interpreted. Therefore, how a person interprets the raw data affects the conclusion on whether God exists. In other words, this involves the use of schema or the predominant beliefs held by a person. If the person is an atheist, he would likely interpret the data as to disprove the existence of God and the reverse for a believer. This boils down to a question of perspectives, schema and predominant belief systems.
Secondly, according to the definitions of God or gods by most religions and modern theologies, God or gods possess the qualities of omnipotence and omniscience. For humans who are most certainly not omniscient, it is impossible for us to discern whether God exists by looking at scientific data. Some look to unusual, unexplainable and miraculous phenomena to prove the existence of God. In fact, most believers or agnostic arguments arise from the belief that when divine interventions, events or miracles happen, it can be noticed and recorded. However, according to the dominant definitions of God or gods, they are omniscient and omnipotent. In other words, should He or She or They decide to intervene and run the world, humanity cannot discern it as they could simply work through the natural laws in place already. Or, as most theories of God(s) go, since God(s) shaped the world, they shaped the natural laws such that they can simply work through them. Since science is based on the study of the world and the natural laws, it is impossible to detect the existence of God(s) through them, unless God(s) decide to show themselves through science. That of course, by major religions, is highly unlikely since it is meant to be by faith, not by scientific reasoning. Therefore, it is difficult to tell the existence of God(s) through science since science is founded on the very laws which God(s) might work through.
Finally, the limitations of the human mind do not allow us to comprehend the reality of God(s) from a logical point of view. As science is based on human logic, it has the same limitations. Modern religions and theologies define God(s) as omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal. The human mind, despite the predominant belief that it is limitless, does not have the full capacity to understand the entire concept of God. The reason is: the concepts of eternity, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence are beyond us. A Christian Bible verse puts it well: “…for His ways are higher than our ways…”. God(s) is/are beyond us. True, we have the definitions that God(s) is/are omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and eternal, but do we truly comprehend them from a logical point of view? Thus, science itself cannot comprehend the reality of God and is therefore unable to prove the existence of God.
However, there are people who believe that science can prove the existence of God. The predominant argument involves looking for similarities in actual history and the history as told in their doctrinal histories. For an example, it is written in Exodus of the Christian/Catholic Bible and Judaism scriptures that Moses the prophet called on Yahweh, or God, who divided the Red Sea for the Israelites to flee from the pursuing Egyptians. There is a similar incident in the histories unravelled by science. According to geological evidence, the Red Sea was merely 3 inches thick, around the time which Moses and the Israelites crossed over. However, whether the fate of the Egyptians who pursued them was caused by the Israelites or the Red Sea closing over them is still much in question. From such scientifically proven incidents, people conclude that God does exist.
Secondly, some believers have chosen another way to interpret their doctrinal scriptures and histories in an extremely symbolic manner, which allows people to use science to prove the existence of God(s). Their rationale is that the scriptures from God(s) often come through divinely inspired moments which the human mind cannot comprehend, save through symbols. This is based on the understanding that the human mind might not be capable of comprehending divine realities. For an example, science has discovered that there have been incidents like the Great Flood mentioned in the Christian/Jewish/Catholic scriptures of Genesis. If the timeline of Genesis is broken down into symbols, it is possible that the Great Flood mentioned in Genesis coincides with the real Great Flood. Through the breaking down of divinely inspired scriptures into symbols it is possible for science to coincide with doctrinal histories.
However, there is a fundamental assumption in these arguments that science can prove the existence of God: that the proving of the truth of doctrines prove the existence of God. It is possible that doctrinal histories actually coincide with real histories, but whether or not God or gods exist is a separate issue. This therefore means that it is difficult, if not impossible for science to prove the existence of God.
In conclusion, it becomes a matter of perspective on whether the existence of God can or cannot be proven by science. Science itself is founded on a pile of assumptions and beliefs, such as the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence. If a person takes these assumptions and beliefs to be true, along with the assumption that if doctrinal history is proven correct, then God exists, by belief or perspective, then he can prove the existence of God through science. However, assumptions are assumptions,meaning that they will have instances which those assumptions will be held false. Therefore, since science is indeed limited because of these assumptions or beliefs, it is difficult to prove the existence of God via science because it in itself is limited.


The failure of the principle of miracles through prayer and worship is a good example. In South Korea, some time ago, there was a small group of teenagers trying to cross a flood to get to their church. Based on the principle from the Bible, “Ask and it shall be given unto you” and a few parables, they prayed and attempted to walk on the floodwaters to their church. Their bodies were not found for a long time. This seems to indicate that at times, the biblical principles do fail, which means that they are not always valid and thus untrue.
Recent Comments